Transparency and Reporting in the Evaluation of PD1 by Flow Cytometry

Transparent and reproducible reporting is essential in flow cytometry, particularly in cancer research where it is used to evaluate biomarkers like PD1. However, inadequate reporting remains a significant concern. In this study, we conducted a methodological review of 100 recent manuscripts from various journals that assessed PD1 expression by flow cytometry in cancer. We evaluated reporting across six domains: methods, dotplot availability, gating strategy, robustness of analysis, figure presentation, and data availability. We found that compliance with basic standards was suboptimal, with only 35%-70% of manuscripts meeting these criteria across different domains. While reagent and device reporting was strong (~90%), transparency regarding key data, such as representative PD1 dotplots and complete gating sequences, was lacking. Contrary to our initial expectations, journal impact factor and whether a journal was focused on cytometry did not correlate consistently with reporting quality. Our findings highlight an urgent need for authors to improve their reporting practices, for reviewers to increase their vigilance, and for journal editors to enforce minimal reporting standards.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cytometry Part A
Published
2025-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.24969
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.61
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Transparency and Reporting in the Evaluation of PD1 by Flow Cytometry

Marc Sorigué, Roser Salvia, Jordi Pétriz
2 citations
Cytometry Part A
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
1.61
article

Transparency and Reporting in the Evaluation of PD1 by Flow Cytometry

Marc Sorigué, Roser Salvia, Jordi Pétriz
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Transparent and reproducible reporting is essential in flow cytometry, particularly in cancer research where it is used to evaluate biomarkers like PD1. However, inadequate reporting remains a significant concern. In this study, we conducted a methodological review of 100 recent manuscripts from various journals that assessed PD1 expression by flow cytometry in cancer. We evaluated reporting across six domains: methods, dotplot availability, gating strategy, robustness of analysis, figure presentation, and data availability. We found that compliance with basic standards was suboptimal, with only 35%-70% of manuscripts meeting these criteria across different domains. While reagent and device reporting was strong (~90%), transparency regarding key data, such as representative PD1 dotplots and complete gating sequences, was lacking. Contrary to our initial expectations, journal impact factor and whether a journal was focused on cytometry did not correlate consistently with reporting quality. Our findings highlight an urgent need for authors to improve their reporting practices, for reviewers to increase their vigilance, and for journal editors to enforce minimal reporting standards.

Cytometry Part AVol. 107(11)
Institut d'Investigació en Ciències de la Salut Germans Trias i Pujol (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
1.61
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Transparency and Reporting in the Evaluation of PD1 by Flow Cytometry — Marc Sorigué, Roser Salvia, et al. · Cytometry Part A (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS